Madras High Court
R. Kumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 August, 2006
Author: A. Kulasekaran
Bench: A. Kulasekaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09/08/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
W.P.No.18050 of 2005
and
W.P.No.18051 of 2005
R. Kumar .. Petitioner in
W.P.No. 18050
1. Ramdass Bharadwaj
2. Meerabhat
3. Sukanya Rao
4. Shantharam Bharadwaj .. Petitioners in
5. Achyut Bharadwaj WP No. 18051
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Secretary to Government
Highways Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority
Chennai 600 008
3. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
4. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)
I.T. Expressway Scheme .. Respondents in
Tambaram both the Writ
Chennai 600 047 Petitions
WP No. 18050 and 18051 of 2005: Petitions filed under Article 226 of
The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the
notification issued by the first defendant in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Highways
(HW1) 25.04.2005, published in Gazzette No.II (2)/HW/(3 40-e-2)/ 2005 under
Section 15 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 20 01 in so far as it relates
to acquisition of the property of the petitioner situated at Government
Manavari Survey No.277-5 (part) now sub-divided as 277-5B, No.44, Kottivakkam
Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, beyond 23 feet from the
existing Western boundary of the petitioner's land as per the sanctioned plan
and master plan of the second respondent, is illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and colourable exercise of power, and inconsistent with the
petitioner's lawful right acquired and become final under the provisions of
the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as per the permission issued
by the 2nd respondent.
!For Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel
for M/s. La and Law in both the
Writ Petitions
For Respondents : Mr. P.S. Raman
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr. M. Dhandapani
Additional Government Pleader
:COMMON ORDER
The Petitioner in WP No. 18050 of 2005 is the owner of undivided share in the lands comprised in Survey No.227/5 (part) to an extent of 1 3000 square feet and holding 50% in the super-structure thereon.
2. The petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in WP No. 18051 of 2005 are represented by the first petitioner and are also co-owners of the said lands comprised in Survey No.227/5 (part).
3. The petitioners in both the writ petitions entered into a joint promotion agreement dated 23.10.2001 with Naveen Housing and Properties Private Limited for construction of the building and obtained sanctioned plan from the second respondent on 27.05.2003 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
4. The petitioners in both the writ petitions seek for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the notification issued by the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Highways (HW1) 25.04.2005 published in the Government Gazzette No.II (2)/HW/(340-e-2)/ 2005 under Section 15 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in so far as it relates to acquisition of property of the petitioners are concerned etc., is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and colourable exercise of power.
5. The learned Senior counsel Mr. K.M. Vijayan appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submits as follows:-
The building plan of the petitioners issued by the planning authority/second respondent is in confirmity with the master plan which proposed widening of I.T. Corridor in the Old Mahabalipuram Road and accordingly the petitioners provided 23 feet required for road expansion in front of the site (which is 50% from the middle of the road) as suggested by the authorities and also further left 15 feet for set back, in all 38 feet. The developer also completed the entire development in accordance with the sanctioned plan and individual undivided property shares were transferred to the flat owners which are under the mortgage of financial institutions. The first respondent took discriminatory stand thereby varied the boundary lines of the proposed highways expansion with an intention to save the other development by Vijay Shanthi Builders on the Western side of the highways by shifting and bending the alignment to the East with a malafide intention. As per Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act, either State Government or Central Government or Local Authority who are contemplating any development to obtain clearance from the second respondent, which possess power to raise objections and require modification of such schemes in tune with master plan, but no such clearance under Section 5 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act was obtained for the proposed I.T. Corridor Express way by the first respondent. The shifting standards of the first respondent in varying the road alignment is reflected by the markings made by it on two occasions, one initially providing widening by 7.2 meters and 7.5 meters on the North and South of the Petitioners property and other subsequently changing into 12.5 and 13.8 meters, seriously affecting the petitioners new building structure and also vital columns of it. The initial marking of 7.2 to 7.5 meters in the entire width of the petitioners property would not have caused any damage to the petitioners structure since it was made strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, but the subsequent marking of increasing the highways boundary to 12.5 meters to 13.8 meters, without notifying the petitioners under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, knowing well the completed structure and development of the petitioners warrants demolition, is a case of noncompliance of mandatory provisions, besides arbitrary exercise of power coupled with malice in Law. The paper publication regarding the proposed acquisition was made in the Tamil Daily on 10.12.2004 under Section 15 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, thereafter, notice calling for objections dated 06.12.2004 was served on 18.12.2004 only on the land owners leaving other interested persons. The petitioners sent their detailed reply on 20.12.2004 to the Acquisition Officer objecting to the widening of the road by more than 23 feet on their property, but the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Law and Rules. The objections of the petitioners were not placed before the second respondent as required under Rule 5, (2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules. The acquiring authority rejected the objections of the petitioners without furnishing the copies of the objections and written reply given by the Highways Authority to the petitioners. The required procedure for changing the road alignment and width contemplated under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act is not followed, hence, the petitioners were not able to know whether their building is likely to be affected or not. The petitioners are also entitled for exemption as contemplated under Section 10 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act. The planning permission was granted by the second respondent under the provisions of Tamil nadu Town and Country Planning Act, which overrides other Acts, was not honoured, the finality of planning permission granted by the second respondent was overlooked and the selective discrimination against the acquisition in front of the petitioners land to accommodate other developers property by adopting the theorey of optimisation. If the shifted alignment by the first respondent is given effect to, it will not only bring down the entire front facade of the building, but will also cause extensive damage to the entire structure of about 13000 square feet constructed at a cost of Rs.1 crore exclusively for the purpose of I.T. Office space will be ruined. There is no public purpose served in demolishing the building that was made with proper sanction by specifically providing 23 feet for the purpose of road widening.
Some of the residents of Kottivakkam Village challenged the acquisition without compensation was decided by this Court on 28.02.2005 whereas the claim of the petitioners is totally different and not restricted to the issue of compensation alone. The petitioners has no objection to surrender that part of the land (23 feet from the existing western boundary of their property) as per the sanctioned plan and street alignment stipulated by the second respondent, which are required for the proposed road expansion project and their objection is restricted to demolition and acquisition of the superstructure and the front set back beyond the street alignment in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Mr. Vijayan further argued that the first respondent, in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of Tamilnadu Highways Act, issued G.O. Ms. No.210, Highways (HN2) dated 06.10.2003 declaring the Chennai-Mahabalipuram road as Highways, on that day, the width of the said road was admittedly 54 feet only in front of the Petitioners land but there was no declaration declaring 136 feet (41 meters). The power of acquisition under Section 15 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act is only in respect of highways declared under Section 3 of the Act, the enlarged boundary not declared under Section 3 of Tamilnadu Highways Act, the power of acquisition cannot be extended; that any acquisition without preceded by a notice under Section 8 of the said Act over and above the existing width is not sustainable. When optimisation as a measure of exercise of quasijudicial jurisdiction is exercised in changing the boundary line in favour of one set of people, the same should be equally applicable to the petitioners as well, but the respondents discriminated the petitioners. Admittedly, the highways authority not made any notification under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act. Mr. Vijayan even though not disputed the power of eminent domain but only questioned the exercise of such power in favour of one person by optimisation; that the eminent domain power does not mean that can override all other statutory provisions like Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, under which, the plan was issued to the petitioners by the second respondent; that the basic principles of statutory provision is to harmonise both the Acts and not to undermine one Act to the other, particularly when both the Acts contained non-obstante clause; that by making a small change in the plant strip on both sides of the path way and a marginal extent in the path way more than four feet can be accommodated without any difficulty and without changing the highway line in that event the petitioners building to the extent of 3 to 4 feet without demolition which is costing about Rs.2 crores and odd can be avoided; that the petitioners have gone to the extent of offering without prejudice to their legal rights to give the entire stretch of land measuing 100 X 38 feet (3800 sq.ft.,) costing presently more than Rs.80 lakhs free to the Government without any claim of compensation, however, prayed for declaration sought for.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.P.S. Raman appearing for the respondents submits that the planning permission was granted by the second respondent permitting the petitioners to put up construction leaving 23 feet for future expansion of the road and another 15 feet as set back and accordingly they have commenced construction by leaving in all 38 feet. The acquisition proceedings commenced in December 2004 after the petitioners have commenced construction, wherein the Government has proposed to acquire 13.8 meters in depth corresponding to 43.8 feet. After hearing the objections from the petitioners, land owners and other interested persons, notification under Section 1 5 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act was published in Government Gazzette. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated to pass award in October 2005. The averment of the petitioners that the acquisition must be in conformity with the master plan is unsustainable in law since the acquisition of a property for public purpose could be made under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Acquisition Act including the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, which has been termed as a power of eminent domain subject to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. It is also established that if the public need requires the Government to take action under the Acquisition Acts, the fact that development has been effected with the prior approval of the authority under the relevant Statutes like the Town and Country Planning Act etc., cannot be a bar for taking such action. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, there can be no acquisition and consequently no development at all will take place. The master plan for Greater Madras is of the year 1976, which is not a permanent plan for all times to come. The master plan is prepared under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act and it has to be approved by the Government under Section 28 of the said Act. Any such master plan or any other development plan so prepared under the Act can be varied, revoked or modified by the Government under Section 32 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act. Section 32 (2) (b) of the said Act provides that once in five years after the date on which the master plan comes into operation, the local planning authority may review the master plan and make such modification, and if directed by the Government, shall review the master plan and make such modification wherever necessary and submit the modified master plan for the approval of the Government. Thus, the master plan is not a permanent document for all time to come. Under Section 47 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, no person, other than the State Government or Central Government or local authority shall use or cause to be used any land or carry out any development in that area other than in confirmity with such development plan, provided that continuous use of any land for the purpose and to the extent for, and to which it is being used on the date on which such development plan comes into operation, may be allowed for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in such development plan. Section 58 of the said Act provides for development that could be undertaken on behalf of any State Government or Central Government or local authority. A reading of the said provisions would make it clear that whenever such development takes place, the planning authority will have to be informed at least 30 days before undertaking such development. In this case, the development proposed is fully within the knowledge of the planning authority namely the second respondent and in fact, it participated in every meeting of the empowered committee monitoring the project in question. The Government has decided to expand the road into a six lane expressway, which expansion may exceed 23 feet. It is within the power of the Government to direct the second respondent to modify the master plan and in such event, the planning authority will have no discretion except to carryout the said direction of the Government. Under Section 32 (4) of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, the master plan has to be reviewed once in five years and it can be modified by the Government or it can be directed to be modified by the planning authority under Section 32 (2) (b), hence, no case can be projected on the basis of such master plan. Sections 36 and 37 of the said Act are also relevant, which makes it clear that the land reserved or designated in a master plan shall be deemed to be a land needed for public purpose and an order to be passed under Section 37 acquiring the said land will be deemed to be a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the land upto 23 feet depth, which has been earmarked for possible expansion under the master plan need not be subject matter of acquisition proceedings and it can be straightaway acquired under the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act by an order, which is to be notified under Section 37 (2) of the Act. The Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act is not in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or Tamilnadu Highways Act in order to invoke Section 111 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act. On the other hand, Section 69 of the Highways Act, which is a subsequent Act of the year 2001 overrides any other Act for the time being in force, including Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, hence, the case of the petitioners that all developments only based on the master plan or planning permission is unsustainable. The petitioners building would be affected to an extent of 5 feet depth would not invalidate the acquisition proceedings since the petitioners entitlement is only compensation for portion of the building apart from the market value of the land acquired. Mr. Raman further submitted that optimisation was done about 300 meters before the petitioners land; that the persons who were allegedly affected directly by the optimisation is M/s. Ferromete Industries, M/s. Power Pipe Company and Tmt.Rajalakshmi, whose lands are almost opposite to the said Vijay Shanthi builders, they have filed separate writ petitions alleging malafide and making specific allegations of changing the alignment of their lands to suit the said Vijay Shanthi builders in W.P. Nos. 9557, 9559 & 10460 of 2006, which were dismissed after elaborate findings that no such malice or discrimination are attracted by order dated 23.06.2006 and the same was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 803 to 805 of 2006 by order dated 30.06.2006. In acquisition, there will be areas of difficulties where some private interest gets affected in larger public interest and no individual can claim being discriminated so long as there has been no singling out. In this case, the land alignment has not undergone any change from the moment the plan was finalised in June 2004 culminating in the notification under Section 15 (2) dated 10.12.2004; that apart from this petitioner, along the same line several other persons have suffered the acquisition; that development of the highways amounts to an activity under Section 58 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, which requires no intimation to the planning authority; that the power of the Government to acquire lands under a statute are not limited except by provisions of the same statute; that Section 69 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 contains a non-obstante clause making it to apply notwithstanding anything contained in any other law which includes the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act. The empowered committee which initiated and implemented the project of I.T. Corridor expansion from Madhya Kailash to Siruseri (Old Mahabalipuram Road) was headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government and the Town and Country Planning Authorities, hence, the alleged violation under Section 58 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act is unsustainable; that Section 111 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, does not, in any manner take away the power of acquisition vested with the Government; that the objections of the petitioners were considered properly in the enquiry conducted under Section 15 (2) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act on 11.01.2005, which were forwarded to the highways authorities, whose written views were read over to the parties at the second enquiry held on 01.02.2005, which also found mentioned in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court stated supra; that the contention of the petitioners that before commencing acquisition under Section 15 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act the boundaries should have been fixed under Section 8 of the said Act is misconceived and when the State exercises the power of eminent domain in acquiring lands for public purposes, the need for formulation of a scheme and procedures of its implementation are not relevant in judging the validity of the acquisition proceedings itself and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the below mentioned decisions:-
i) (Chelliah Konar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu by the Special Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Madurai and another) 1972 (II) MLJ 208 wherein a single judge of this Court held in Para-7 thus:-
7. Equally untenable is the contention that the Government are estopped from initiating acquisition proceedings for the reason that the building of the petitioner was put up after obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner of the Municipality. If public need requires the Government to take action under the Land Acquisition Act, the fact that the building was put up with the prior approval of the authority under the relevant statute, cannot be a bar for taking action. Public good overrides the individual benefit and the Government cannot be restrained from taking action in public interest, even though the action may effect injuriously the interest of an individual. I find nothing in law to prevent the Government from initiating acquisition proceedings."
ii) (Aflatoon vs. Lt.Governor, Delhi) AIR 1974 SC 2077 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held in Para No.23, thus:-
"23. The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even before the Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force, but there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the Master Plan was ready (see the decision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi (1963) Supp (2) SCR 812 = (AIR 1963 SC 1077). In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area, other than a development area, it is onlynecessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in S.12 (3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the power to acquire the land under S.15 was delegated by the Central Government to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. We have already held that the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification under Section 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceeding for acquisition by issuing the notification under S.4 of the Act as Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act gives that power only to the Central Government relates primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi was not authorised by the Central Government to issue the notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, since the appellants and the writ petitioners are precluded by their laches and acquiescence from questioning the notification, the contention must, in any event, be negatived and we do so."
iii) (Bhagat Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 436, wherein in Para Nos. 19, 20, 22 and 23, it was held thus:-
"22. As pointed out in the above judgments, there is no need that the land proposed to be acquired by the Government for a particular public purpose should be for the same purpose or use mentioned in the master plan or Zonal plan for the said area. Nor will the acquisition be invalid merely because the land proposed to be acquired is for a purpose other than the one permitted by the master plan or zonal plan application to that locality. Acquisition will be valid if it is for a public purpose even if it is not for the type of user permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan in force at the time the acquisition is made. It will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In fact, it may be difficult for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act seeking permission to change of land use even before the land is acquired or before possession is given to the beneficiary. On the principal stated in Aflatoon's case (AIR 1974 SC 2077), it is clear that acquisition for a public purpose and obtaining permission from competent authority under the concerned Development Act for change of land use are different from one another and the former is not dependent upon the latter.
29. We are of the view that the above facts do show that development of the market is in various phases and the future development of the market in a growing town like Agra was kept in mind while acquiring this area. It is not for the Court to say that there was no need to acquire the appellant's lands for the market and that the remaining land was sufficient. If such a contention were to be accepted, each of the owners could equally advance such an argument making the scheme wholly unworkable. These appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed."
8. The petitioner in both the writ petitions carried out the development as per the planning permission dated 27.05.2003 granted by the second respondent, leaving 23 feet as required by them for the proposed widening of old Mahabalipuram Road from 54 feet to 100 feet. On 06 .10.2003, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.210 under Section 3 of The Tamilnadu Highways Act, hereinafter referred to as TNH Act, declaring the Chennai-Mahabalipuram road as highway. The petitioners stated that on the date of the said notification, the width of the said road was 54 feet, but there was no declaration declaring 136 feet (41 meters), hence, it is not open to them to expand the road or acquire for expansion, when it is not declared under Section 3 of TNH Act; that there is an alteration in the boundary of the said road changing from 54 to 136 feet while issuing notice under Section 15 (2) and also final notification under Section 15 (1) of TNH Act; that the said change of boundary line was not done by notifying under Section 8 nor with the reference to Section 58 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act prior to notice under Section 15 (2) of TNH Act, therefore, without preceded by notification under Section 8 of TNH Act, fixing the new boundary line of the said road, the declaration under Section 3 of TNH Act as on 06.10.2003 restricts the power of acquisition only to the old boundary of 54 feet; that the authorities not followed the procedures for the enquiry conducted under Rule 5 (2) (3) of Tamilnadu Highways Rules, hereinafter referred to as TNH Rules; that the respondents not furnished the copy of the report submitted to the Government under Section 15 (3) of TNH Act; that between notices under Section 15 (2) and final order under Section 15 (1) of TNH Act, two alignments were marked in the property of the petitioners, the second marking alone cause damage to the petitioners property and failure in making declaration under Section 8 of TNH Act, the petitioners were unable to know to what extent their buildings are to be affected, besides that the petitioners are entitled for exemption under Section 10 of TNH Act since they have constructed the building already. It is further stated that when optimisation as a measure of exercise of quasi judicial jurisdiction is exercised changing the boundary line in favour of one set of people, adversely affecting the property of the petitioners, it is an arbitrary exercise of power coupled with malice in law. Without prejudice to the rights, it is also submitted that by making a small change in the plant strip on both sides of the path way and a marginal extent in the path way more than four feet can be accommodated without any difficulty and without changing the highway line in that event the petitioners building to the extent of 3 to 4 feet without demolition which is costing about Rs.2 crores and odd can be avoided; that the petitioners have gone to the extent of offering without prejudice to their legal rights to give the entire stretch of land measuring 100' X 38' (3800 sq.ft.,) costing presently more than Rs.80 lakhs free to the Government without any claim of compensation, however, prayed for declaration sought for.
9. The relevant sections of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, Tamilnadu Highways Act and Tamilnadu Highways Rules to resolve the disputes involved in this case are extracted below:-
Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971:-
2. Definitions: (13) Development: Development means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under this Act, and shall include the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land:
Provided that for the purposes of this Act, the following operations of use of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the land, that is to say,-
(a) the carrying out of any temporary works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building:
(b) the carrying out by a local authority of any temporary works required for the maintenance or improvement of a road, or works carried out on land within the boundaries of the road:
(c) the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertaker of any temporary works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose.
(d) the use of any building or other land within the curtailage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such; and
(e) the use of any land for the purpose of agriculture, gardening or forest (including afforestation) and the use for any purpose specified in this clause of this proviso of any building occupied together with the land so used:
17. Master Plans,-- (1) As soon as may be, after the declaration of a local planning area under Section 10 and after the concultation of the appropriate planning authority under section 11, the local planning authority shall, within such time as may be prescribed and after consulting the regional planning authority and the local authorities concerned, prepare and submit to the Government, a plan hereinafter called the master plan, for the local planning area or any part of it and such other area or areas contiguous or adjacent to the local planning area, as the Government may direct to be included in the master plan.
(2) The master plan may propose or provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the manner in which the land in the planning area shall be used:
(b) the allotment or reservation of land for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes and for parks, play-fields and open spaces:
(c) the allotment and reservation of land for public buildings, institutions and for civic amenities:
(d) the making provision for national highways, arterial roads, ring roads, major streets, lines of communication including railways, airports and canals:
(e) the traffic and transportation pattern and traffic circulation pattern;
(f) the major road and street improvements;
(g) the areas reserved for future development, expansion and for
new housing;
(h) the provision for the improvement of areas of bad layout or
obsolete development and slum areas and for relocation of population;
(i) the amenities, services and utilities;
(j) the provision for detailed development of specific areas for
housing, shopping, industries and civic amenities and educational and cultural facilities;
(k) the control of architectural features, elevation and frontage of buildings and structures;
(l) the provision for regulating the zone, the location, height, number of storeys and size of buildings and other structures, the size of the yards and other open spaces and the use of buildings, structures and land;
(m) the stages by which the master plan shall be carried out; and
(n) such other matters as may be prescribed.
32. Variation, revocation and modification of regional plans, master plans and new town development plan.--
(1) A regional plan, master plan or new town development plan approved under section 28 may, at any time, be varied or revoked by a subsequent regional plan, master plan or new town development plan, as the case may be, prepared and approved under this Act.
(2) (a) Once in every ten years after the date on which the regional plan for an area comes into operation, the regional planning authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the Director, review the regional plan and make such modifications in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified regional plan for the approval of the Government.
(b) Once in every five years after the date on which the master plan for an area comes into operation, the local planning authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the regional planning authority and the local authorities concerned, review the master plan and make such modifications in suchplan wherever necessary and submit the modified master plan for the approval of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sections 26, 28 and 30 with such modifications as may be necessary shall apply to such modified regional plan or the master plan, as the case may be.
(4) The Government may, at any time by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette, vary or revoke the regional plan, a master plan or a new town development plan, as the case may be, prepared and approved under this Act.
36. Power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act.-- Any land required, reserved or designated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be land needed for apublic purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) and may be acquired under the said Act as modified in the manner provided in the Act.
37. Power to purchase or acquire lands specified in the development plan.-- (1) Where after the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette of preparation of a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan, as the case may be, any land is required, reserved or designated in such plan, the appropriate planning authority may, either enter into agreement with any person for the acquisition from him by purchase of any land which may be acquired under section 36 or make an application to the Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) Provided that if the value of such land exceeds fifty thousand rupees the appropriate planning authority shall not enter into such agreement without the previous approval of the Government.
(2) On receipt of an application made under sub-section (1), if the Government are satisfied that the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose specified therein, the may make a declaration to that effect in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette, in the manner provided in section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), in respect of the said land. The declaration so published shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said section 6 of the said Act.
Provided that no such declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice under Section 26 or Section 27 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such notice.
(3) On the publication of such declaration, the Collector of the district within whose jurisdiction the land is situate, shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of such land under the said Act; and the provisions of that Act shall, so far as may be, apply to the acquisition of the said land with the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value prevailing on the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette under sec. 26 or sec. 27, as the case may be.
58. Development undertaken on behalf of any State Government or Central Government or local authority.-- (1) When any department of any State Government or the Central Government or any local authority intends to carry out development of any land or building, the officer-in-charge thereof shall inform, in writing, the planning authority concerned the intention to do so, giving full particulars thereof, and accompanied by such plans and documents at least thirty days before undertaking such development:
Provided that in case where any local authority is the local planning authority under this Act, it shall inform the fact of any such proposed development to the regional planning authority concerned within whose jurisdiction such local authority is situated.
(2) Where a planning authority concerned or the regional planning authority concerned, as the case may be, raised any objection to the proposed development on the ground that the development is not in conformity with the provisions of any development plan under preparation or for any other material consideration, the officer of the State Government, Central Government or any local authority, as the case may be, shall--
(i) either make necessary modifications in the proposals for development to meet the objections raised by the planning authority concerned, or
(ii) submit the proposals for development together with the objections raised by the planning authority concerned to the Government for decision.
(3) The Government, on receipt of the proposals for development together with the objections of the planning authority concerned shall, in consultation with the Director, either approve the proposals with or without modifications or direct the officer to make such modifications in the proposals as they consider necessary in the circumstances and the officer concerned shall be bound to make such modifications as proposed by the Government.
111. Effect of other laws.-- (1) The provisions of this Act shall be read subject to the provisions of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Severage Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978):
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, custom, usage or contract.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) but notwithstanding anything contained in any other law-
(a) when permission for development in respect of any land or building has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development, has not been obtained;
(b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained.
The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (2) Definitions:- (12) 'highway' means any road, way or land which is declared to be a highway under section 3 and includes--
(a) all land appurtenant thereto, whether demarcated or not;
(b) the slope, berm, burrow pits, foot paths, pavement, whether surfaced or unsurfaced;
(c) all bridges, culverts, cause ways, carriageways or other structures built on or across such road or way;
(d) the foot-way attached to any road, public bridge or causeway;
(e) the drains attached to any such street, public bridge or causeway and the land, whether covered or not by any pavement, varanda or other structure, which lies on either side of the roadway upto the boundaries of the adjacent property, whether that property is private or property belonging to the Central Government or any State Government; and
(f) all fences, trees, posts and boundaries, hectometre and kilometre stones and other highway accessories and materials stacked on such road or public bridge or cause way but does not include a National Highway declared as such by or under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Central Act 48 of 1956).
3. Declaration of roads, ways or lands as highways.-- On the recommendation made by the State Highways Authority, the Government may, by notification, declare any road, way or land to be highway and classify it as any one of the following, namely;--
i) a State Highway;
ii) a major district road;
iii) other district road; or
iv) a village road;
Provided that where such road, way or land whether in whole or in part is owned by any local authority, such notification shall be issued with the concurrence of that local authority by a resolution passed by it in this behalf. 8. Power to fix highway boundary, building line, control line etc.,.- (1) The Highways authority of any division may, by notification, in relation to any highway or any area in that division, where the construction or development of a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, fix-
(a) the highway boundary, building line, or control line; or
(b) the highway boundary and the building line; and
(c) the building line and the control line;
Provided that before the publication of the notification under this sub-section, a draft of the said notification shall be published inviting objections, if any, on the proposed fixation.
(2) The draft of the notification under sub-section (1) shall contain--
(a) all details of lands situated between the highway boundary line and control line proposed to be fixed and in the case of new works, the lands and persons benefitted by the construction or development of such highway; and
(b) notice requiring all persons likely to be affected by such notification, to make their objections or suggestions, if any, in writing, with respect to the issue of such a notification, to the Highways authority within such period as may be prescribed.
(3) After considering the representation, if any, received under sub-section (2), the Highways authority may, with the approval of the State Highways Authority--
(i) drop the proposal to fix the highway boundary, the building line or the control line; or
(ii) publish the final notification under sub-section (1) with such modifications as may be considered necessary (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Government may, in consultation with the State Highways Authority, having regard to the situation or the requirements of any highway or the condition of the area through which such highway passes--
(a) fix different building line and control line for such highways; or
(b) refrain from fixing the building line or control line for such highway or portion thereof.
9. Restriction on building: On or after the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 8 in relation to any highway or any area, no person shall, in such highway or in such area, in respect of any land lying between the highway boundary and the building line or between the building line and the control line, as the case may be.--
(a) erect any building or make or extend any excavation or carry out any mining or other operation in, or over such land or make any material change in the use of, or construct, form, or layout any works on such land; or
(b) construct, form or layout any means of access to or from such highway.
except with the written permission of the Highways Authority and in accordance with such terms and conditions, as may be specified in such permission.
10. Exemption for works in progress etc.,- Nothing contained in Section 9 shall apply to --
(a) erection of any building or the making or extension of any excavation or the carrying out of any mining or other operation or the making of any material change or the construction, formation or laying out of any means of access or of works already commenced, or
(b) any excavation or works necessary for the repairs, renewal, enlargement or maintenance of any sewer, drain, electric line, pipe, duct or other apparatus made or extended or constructed, formed or laid out in, or over, or under, any land before the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) of section 8.
11. Setting back of building beyond building lines.- When any building or part thereof erected before the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 8 is lying between the highway boundary and the building line, the Highways Authority may, whenever any such building or part thereof, either entirely, or in greater part, is taken down or burnt down or has fallen down, by notice, require the owner or occupier of such building or part thereof, when re-erected to be set back to the building line or control line.
13. Preparation of maps:- (1) The highways authority of every division shall, within such time as may be prescribed, cause to be prepared a map of that division through which any highway or the construction or development of any highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, showing the highway boundaries, building line and control line of such highway, the boundaries of such area and such other particulars, as may be prescribed.
(2) It shall be open to the highways authority to make corrections to the map prepared under sub-section (1) with necessary additions, alterations, omissions or such other modifications as may be considered necessary.
(3) The map shall, after the approval of the State Highways Authority,-
(a) be kept in the office of the Highway Authority, with such particulars as may be prescribed and
(b) be open to inspection, free of charge during office hours, by any person having interest.
(4) Nothing contained in the Registration Act, 1908 shall be deemed to require the registration of the map prepared under this section and such map shall, for the purposes of sections 53, 54 and 55 of that Act, be deemed to have been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
15. Power to acquire land.- (1) If the Government are satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of any highway or for construction of bridges, culverts, causeways or other structures thereon or for any purpose incidental or ancillary thereto, in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette a notice specifying the description of such land and the particular purpose for which such land is required.
(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall call upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The Government may, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or other person having interest on such land, pass such an order under sub-section (1), as they may deem fit.
69. Act to override contract and other laws etc., Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, custom, usage or contract or decree or order of a court or other authority.
The Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.
5. Manner of publication of the public notice.-- (1) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1) of section 15, the Government or the Collector, as the case may be shall in addition to calling upon the owner and any other person having interest in the land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired, shall also cause a public notice to that effect to be published in one English and in one Tamil news papers having circulation in the locality. The said notice shall also be displayed in the offices of the
i) Highways authority of the division concerned
ii) Village Administrative Officer of the village concerned; and
iii) Tahsildar of the Taluk concerned;
(2) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land within the time prescribed in the public notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Government or the Collector, as the case may be shall fix a date of hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objetor as well as to the Highways Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to the Highways Department. The Highways Department may file, on or bef ore the date fixed by the Government or the Collector, as the case may be a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.
(3) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned, the Government or the Collector as the case may be shall hear the objector or a person authorised by him in this behalf and the representative, if any of the Highways Department and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objection and in support of the need for acquiring the land.
(4) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Collector, on completion of the enquiry, the Collector shall submit all the details of the enquiry to the Government, enabling the Government to pass order under sub-section (3) of Section 15.
(5) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Government, the Government will pass orders under sub-section (3) of Section 15.
10. The petitioners building was constructed as per the approved plan issued by the second respondent on 27.05.2003 leaving 23 feet for the proposed widening of the road. The Government of Tamilnadu issued G.O.Ms. No.210 (HN2) dated 06.10.2003 declaring the ChennaiMahabalipuram road as State highway under Section 3 of TNH Act. Until declaration is made, the highways authorities cannot take the work of construction, maintenance and development, restriction of ribbon development along such highways and levy of betterment charges in the public interest. G.O.Ms. No.206 was issued by Highways Department under Section 15 (2) of TNH Act calling upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to send their objections to the District Collector, Kancheepuram within 15 days. The petitioners have submitted their objections to the said Collector on 20.12.2004 to drop the acquisition proceedings over and above 23 feet of their land from its western boundary. The petitioners appeared in the enquiry conducted by the said Collector on 11.01.2005 and 01.02.2005. The highways department filed a statement by way of answer to the objections of the petitioners and also deputed a representative to attend the enquiry. The Collector, after hearing both sides, submitted all the details of the enquiry to the Government under Section 15 (3) of TNH Act to pass orders. The Government satisfied that the lands are required for the purpose of highways and published the notice in Government Gazzette dated 25.04.2005 under Section 15 (1) of TNH Act specifying the description of such lands and particular purpose for which such land is required, hence, the petitioners averments that the enquiry was not conducted as per Rule 5 of TNH Rules is rejected.
11. It is seen from the records that a notice dated 13.05.2005 under Section 16 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to surrender their land within 30 days of service of the same and the writ petitions were filed on 27.05.2005.
12. It is contended by the petitioners that on the date of notification under Section 3 on 06.10.2003, the width of the said road was 54 feet in front of their land and it did not include the changed boundary of 41 meters, hence, the acquisition, without preceded by a notification under Section 8 of TNH Act, over and above the original width is not sustainable. The said contention was denied by the respondents. It is evident that Section 3 of TNH Act enables the Government to issue notification to declare any roadway or land to be a highway and classify it as any one of the following, namely i) a State Highway; ii) a major district road; iii) other district road; or iv) a village road. Only on such declaration, construction, maintenance, development, restriction of ribbon development and levy of betterment charges and for matters connected therewith are incidental thereto can be commenced. The purpose of issuing declaration under Section 3 of the TNH Act is only to the limited extent of declaring it as highway, no details of width on the date or future expansion or changed boundary are required to be mentioned and the said issue is answered accordingly.
13. The contention of the petitioners is that if the highway boundary line is declared under Section 8 after calling for objections and thereafter the notification under Section 3 is issued, then the road with the enhanced boundary will come well within the scope of acquisition under Section 15 of TNH Act, in other words, without preceded by a notification under Section 8 fixing the new boundary line, the declaration under Section 3 restrict the power of acquisition only to the extent of old boundary. It is replied by the respondents that Chapter III of the TNH Act dealing with 'restriction of ribbon development' i.e., restriction of construction activity on either side of a notified highway; that the power of the State Government to fix such boundary lines etc., is a discretionary power and is not a mandatory one; that the section itself makes it clear that the Highways authority of any division 'may' by notification fix boundary lines etc., that sub-section 4 of the said section makes it even more clear that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 1 to 3 the Government may in consultation with the State Highways Authority even refrain from fixing any building line or control line for such highway or portion thereof; that there is no mandate for the Government or the Highways authorities to take any action under Section 8 prior to section 15 (2) of TNH Act; that the action relating to prevention of ribbon development has nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings under Chapter IV, which will be more clear on a perusal of Chapter VI which specifically deals with payment of compensation for any person affected by a proceeding under Chapter III and if the contention of the petitioners are correct, then there is no need for providing any separate clause for compensation since chapter IV contains separate provisions for the same.
14. Chapter III relates to 'restriction of ribbon development'. The said chapter contains Sections 8 to 14. As per Oxford Dictionary, 'ribbon development' means the building of house along a main road. According to Websters Third New International Dictionary, 'ribbon development' means a system of buildings built side by side or adjoining that follow in succession along a road. The headings 'restriction of ribbon development' prefixed to set of Sections 8 to 14 makes it clear that the highways authority of any division may by notification where the construction or development of a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken; fix highway boundary; building line and control line after publishing draft notification inviting objections; impose restriction of building construction after notification; grant exemption for the building already constructed and in case the said building is dismantled while re-construction, order to be set back to the building line or control line; may by notification regulate or divert any existing right of access to highways; preparation of maps and empowers highways authority and other officers to enter upon survey and take measurements etc., It is evident that Chapter III only dealing with 'restriction of ribbon development'. The powers under Chapter III is discretionary powers and is not mandatory one.
15. Chapter IV relates to acquisition of property which contains Sections 15 to 25. Under the said chapter, if the Government are satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of any highway or for construction of bridges, culverts, causeways or other structures thereon or for any purpose incidental or ancillary thereto, in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette after entertaining objections from the owners or the interested persons of the land and the land so acquired shall vest with the Government free from all encumbrance. Any land acquired in this Act, the Government may use or cause to be used such land for the purpose of this Act. Every owner or person interested in any land required under this Act shall be entitled to receive and be paid an amount. If any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Collector in determining the amount may within 60 days from the date of such decision seek for reference to civil Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said Chapter also deals with apportionment of the amount,payment of amount, investment of amount by depositing in Court, payment of interest and power of entry. Thus, the chapter IV is an independent one for acquisition of property and also for payment of compensation amount to the land owners and therefore the contentions of the petitioners that notification under Section 8 is sine qua non for initiating acquisition proceedings is untenable, hence the said ground is rejected.
16. One other issue raised by the petitioners is that once the building plan was granted under the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, following it 23 feet width land was left for expansion of highway and construction also completed, beyond that limit, it precludes acquisition under TNH Act and Section 111 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act provides for overriding power for development in accordance with that Act, the TNH Act was not saved under the said Act, hence, it is therefore harmoniously construed that the road alignment provided by CMDA under the master plan alone has to be given effect to.
17. Master plan is defined under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act which states that the local planning authority shall after consulting the regional planning authority and the local authority concerned, prepare and submit to the Government the master plan for the local planning area or any part of it and such other area or areas contiguous or adjacent to the local planning area. The master plan may provide for the manner in which the land in the planning area shall be used, the allotment or reservation of land for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes etc., allotment and reservation of land for public buildings etc., the making of provision for national highways, arterial roads, ring roads, major streets etc., the major road and street improvements etc., Under Section 28 of Town and Country Planning Act, the Government may either approve the said plan or may approve it with such modification or return to the appropriate planning authority to modify or prepare fresh plans. Under Section 32 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, once in every five years after the date on which the master plan comes into operation, the regional planning authority may, and if so directed by the Government, shall after carrying out fresh surveys, review it. The Government under Section 32 (4) of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act may, at any time by notification vary or revoke the master plans, hence, the master plan is not a permanent one which can be reviewed by the Government.
18. Whenever the Government proposes to go for the purpose of any highway or for construction or in furtherance of the objects of TNH Act acquire lands in exercise of power under Section 15 of TNH Act. Under Section 17, where any land has been acquired under this Act, the Government may use or cause to be used such land for the purpose of this Act. The power of compulsory acquisition of property which, according to every system of jurisprudence the State possesses, is known as the power of 'Eminent Domain.'. Acquisition generally precedes development and consequently the land in question could be acquired in anticipation of the approval of the State Government for the change of the land use of the master plan prepared by the development authority. Acquisition will be valid if it is for public purpose, even if it is not for the 'type of user permitted by the master plan' in force at the time of acquisition is made. It will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the master plan so as to permit the use of land for the public purpose for which acquired. On the principle stated in ' Aflatoon case 1974 (4) SCC 285', it is clear that acquisition for public purpose and obtaining permission from the competent authority under the development Act concerned for change of land use are different from one another and the former is not dependent upon the 'latter'. Followed (Bhagat Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) 1999 (2) SCC 384, Para-22 stated supra, hence, the averment that the alignment provided by the second respondent alone under the Master plan has to be given effect to and not the varying standards adopted by highway department is devoid of merits.
19. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the empowered committee, which conceived and implemented the road in dispute was headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government and it had continuous participation of the Town and Country planning authorities through the Member Secretary of CMDA and the said participation by the second respondent amounts to complying with Section 58 of the Act, which is not disputed by the petitioner.
20. It is well known that non-obstante clause in Section 69 of TNH Act and Section 111 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act is a legislative device, which is so employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. Followed (Union of India vs. G.M. Kokil) AIR 1984 SC 1022, hence, the nonobstante clause found in both Acts were not overrideen by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner.
21. The petitioners alleged that the Highways authority, while exercising their power of acquisition indulged in discrimination under the pretext of optimisation thereby saved the building on the opposite side namely Vijay Shanthi builders but failed to extend it to their property. It is replied by the respondents that optimisation was done about 300 meters before the petitioners land and the persons who were allegedly affected directly by the optimisation, since their lands are almost opposite to Vijay Shanthi Builders have filed separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 9557, 9559 & 10460 of 2006 and the respondents herein filed their counter and stoutly denied that the said averment is nothing but a falsehood; that the said Writ Petitions were dismissed on 23.06.2006 and the same was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 803 to 805 of 2006 by order dated 30.06.2006 holding that the same point was raised in the enquiry conducted under Section 15 (2) of TNH Act and the authorities, after careful consideration rejected the same. The same objection raised by the petitioners also considered by the respondents and rejected in the said enquiry. It is also pointed out by the respondents that land alignment has not undergone any change from the moment the plan was finalised in June 2004 culminating in the notice under Section 15 (2) of the TNH Act dated 10.12.2004. This Court also follow the said findings of the Division Bench stated above.
22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits without prejudice to the right of the petitioners that by making a small change in the plant strip on both sides of the path way and a marginal extent in the path way more than four feet can be accommodated without any difficulty and without changing the highway line, in that event the petitioners building to an extent of 3 to 4 feet without demolition, which is costing about Rs.2 crores and odd can be avoided and if the respondents agree for the above proposal, the petitioners are willing to surrender the entire stretch of land measuring 100' X 38' which was left already as per the original master plan costing presently at more than Rs.80 lakhs free to the Government without any claim of compensation. It is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the said request was made by the petitioners before the Chief Secretary to Government and the same was considered and rejected on the ground that reducing the extent as suggested by the petitioners is not feasible, however, the amount/compensation for petitioners land and building be made as per the provisions of Law. The proposal of the petitioners is technically not feasible, hence, it is for the authorities to decide the said point and not for this Court.
23. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
rsh To
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Highways Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009
2. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai 600 008
3. The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram
4. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) I.T. Expressway Scheme Tambaram Chennai 600 047